Ant-Man Movie

Anyone have an interest in the Ant-Man movie scheduled to not show up until 2015? I was a little disappointed that they weren't in the Avengers, since they were original members in the comics. I'm curious about who they'll get to play Hank and Janet.

As a non comic book reader, I have to admit Ant-Man is the worst name ever Will he catch on with the majorty of the cinema audience which are casual movie goers? or will he become like the HULK? unable to stand alone on a movie.

As a non comic book reader, I have to admit Ant-Man is the worst name ever Will he catch on with the majorty of the cinema audience which are casual movie goers? or will he become like the HULK? unable to stand alone on a movie.

Click to expand...

Hulk's inability to stand alone I think has more to do with limitations of the character himself. His origin story works well enough, but once you turn the focus away from Banner and start focusing on Hulk by himself, it gets harder to really explore his world in a 90 minute movie.

I had no real exposure to Ant-Man until I watched the cartoon "Earth's Mightiest Heroes," and I have to say that I think he will work just fine in the greater Marvel movie universe that they're creating. I mean, if they can make a Thor movie work, I think they can make Ant-Man work as well.

As a non comic book reader, I have to admit Ant-Man is the worst name ever Will he catch on with the majorty of the cinema audience which are casual movie goers? or will he become like the HULK? unable to stand alone on a movie.

Click to expand...

Hulk's inability to stand alone I think has more to do with limitations of the character himself. His origin story works well enough, but once you turn the focus away from Banner and start focusing on Hulk by himself, it gets harder to really explore his world in a 90 minute movie.

Click to expand...

Except, for some, Hulk was perfectly able to carry off a stand alone movie on his own. In fact, I felt the Ang Lee entry was an ambitious, extremely well made, brilliantly directed and highly entertaining film. I certainly didn't feel any limitations in the character at all, quite the opposite in actuality. Lee created a perfect balance in the movie, between Banner's angst and straight out comic book action.

As a non comic book reader, I have to admit Ant-Man is the worst name ever Will he catch on with the majorty of the cinema audience which are casual movie goers? or will he become like the HULK? unable to stand alone on a movie.

Click to expand...

Hulk's inability to stand alone I think has more to do with limitations of the character himself. His origin story works well enough, but once you turn the focus away from Banner and start focusing on Hulk by himself, it gets harder to really explore his world in a 90 minute movie.

Click to expand...

Except, for some, Hulk was perfectly able to carry off a stand alone movie on his own. In fact, I felt the Ang Lee entry was an ambitious, extremely well made, brilliantly directed and highly entertaining film. I certainly didn't feel any limitations in the character at all, quite the opposite in actuality. Lee created a perfect balance in the movie, between Banner's angst and straight out comic book action.

Click to expand...

Right, but again, that was an origin story. I actually liked that movie as well.

I just think, going forward, a standalone Hulk sequel would be very difficult to pull off, and I don't know how many people actually care enough the character to want to see it. Hulk as a part of an ensemble worked great in The Avengers, and that's how I would personally prefer to see the character.

I just don't know how you would do a standalone Hulk sequel that isn't just a rehash of the original story. Banner's angst is only so interesting.

As a non comic book reader, I have to admit Ant-Man is the worst name ever

Click to expand...

It is silly. In fact, it is exactly as silly as "Spider-Man".

Click to expand...

It's ironic that people would think "Ant-Man" is a dumb name, but not "Spider-Man" but I think Mirrorball Man has a point. I'm also one of those non comic book readers who has to wonder whether the general movie-going public will give a hero with that name a chance. Perhaps the difference is that spiders are thought of as a little mysterious and even scary, while ants are usually just thought of as small, annoying, and easily stepped on.

However, I am frequently surprised by what is and is not popular, so perhaps the movie-going public will go for it.

I think it's the simple fact that Batman and Spider-Man are well-known. I hear the name Spider-Man, and I don't even blink because it's a name that I've grown up with. I think a lot of people are in the same boat. Ant-Man just sounds silly because it's a name that a lot of us have never heard before. It doesn't really make sense, but it is what it is.

To be fair, spiders are generally seen as more dangerous and sinister and, yes, even sexier than ants. You've got black widows and tarantulas and spooky webs and so on. There was the old pulp hero The Spider, "Kiss of the Spider Woman," "Spider Baby," etc. Heck, even Captain Janeway posed as "Arachnia, Queen of the Spider People."

Ants, on the other hand, are not generally seen as sexy or scary. Ants are not employed as Halloween decorations. Wednesday Addams did not have a pet ant. Nobody talks about getting entangled in "a treacherous ant-hill of intrigue." Frodo did not fight a giant ant in Mordor. Ants are conscientious worker drones, not spooky, sexy symbols of danger. Spiders are to ants as cobras are to garter snakes.

Ant-Man preceded Spider-Man by a handful of months, as well as the Hulk. If you don't count Cap, Namor and the first Torch or anyone from the 40s, he may technically be Marvel's first solo hero. The Wasp came slightly later, and I've always liked her better than her husband. Despite her early airhead status, she still had lots more personality. I hope she gets more than just a cameo in the movie. But they'll have to make her visually different than the flying girl in X-MEN: FIRST CLASS.

Playing the film for laughs is a wise move, considering. If it's even just one-tenth as funny as HOT FUZZ, I'll be happy.

Part of the problem with Ant-Man/Giant Man/Yellowjacket is he's always treated his wife like a third-class citizen, years before he became an infamous wife-beater. I still haven't forgiven him in AVENGERS Volume One, Issue 45 in which he plays his first compliment to a female, calling her a knockout.
And wouldn't you know, it's the Black Widow. What a dick. The Wasp was in the room at the time, naturally.

To be fair, spiders are generally seen as more dangerous and sinister and, yes, even sexier than ants. You've got black widows and tarantulas and spooky webs and so on. There was the old pulp hero The Spider, "Kiss of the Spider Woman," "Spider Baby," etc. Heck, even Captain Janeway posed as "Arachnia, Queen of the Spider People."

Ants, on the other hand, are not generally seen as sexy or scary. Ants are not employed as Halloween decorations. Wednesday Addams did not have a pet ant. Nobody talks about getting entangled in "a treacherous ant-hill of intrigue." Frodo did not fight a giant ant in Mordor. Ants are conscientious worker drones, not spooky, sexy symbols of danger. Spiders are to ants as cobras are to garter snakes.

(Okay, there was "Them," but that's the exception to the rule!)

Ditto for bats, of course.

Click to expand...

Ants are terrifying if there's lots of them. Ant-Man should be rebooted as Ant-Army.

And in this post of the "What's Next For Marvel (movies)?" thread, I posted a link that goes to a video that show a lot of upcoming Marvel movie goodies, including a few seconds of Edgar Wright's live-action Ant-Man test footage, which convinced me that Ant-Man can work on the big screen.

Anyone have an interest in the Ant-Man movie scheduled to not show up until 2015? I was a little disappointed that they weren't in the Avengers, since they were original members in the comics. I'm curious about who they'll get to play Hank and Janet.